How exactly would you normalize this data? It's the percentage of the absolute numbers, means it shows the actual representation. Don't get currently why a normalization would be beneficial, but my math is a bit rusty, so please elaborate, maybe we can improve it.

How exactly would you normalize this data? It's the percentage of the absolute numbers, means it shows the actual representation. Don't get currently why a normalization would be beneficial, but my math is a bit rusty, so please elaborate, maybe we can improve it.

Because it doesn't take the total class population into account. Only by normalizing over the total class population can you get some hints on what is "stronger" or not.

You have for example 39 hunters getting glad in EU. If 40 hunters play the game you can say they are overpowered. If 100000 hunters play the game, even if the percentage you report is 13.26%, the percentage of hunters getting glad is 3.9% which would mean hunters are actually weak.

tl;dr: no normalization=no relative class strength conclusions

justchecking, on 10 November 2014 - 11:58 PM, said:

Going to blizzcon looking for a fight is like going to the official wow arena forums for pvp advice :)

Renaissance_Man, on 31 July 2013 - 04:31 AM, said:

If I had a gun with two bullets and I was in a room with Hitler, bin Laden, and you, I would shoot you twice.

Because it doesn't take the total class population into account. Only by normalizing over the total class population can you get some hints on what is "stronger" or not.

You have for example 39 hunters getting glad in EU. If 40 hunters play the game you can say they are overpowered. If 100000 hunters play the game, even if the percentage you report is 13.26%, the percentage of hunters getting glad is 3.9% which would mean hunters are actually weak.

tl;dr: no normalization=no relative class strength conclusions

Except the general population of a class means absolutely nothing. This is a small number of top PVPers who generally will play the best class available to them, and even if someone doesn't multi-class, the best classes will still reach the top.

It's been discussed at length why representation does matter in the past, despite the lack of normalization. It really doesn't need to be rehashed all over again.

Except the general population of a class means absolutely nothing. This is a small number of top PVPers who generally will play the best class available to them, and even if someone doesn't multi-class, the best classes will still reach the top.

It's been discussed at length why representation does matter in the past, despite the lack of normalization. It really doesn't need to be rehashed all over again.

What you said only applies for the first few spots of the ladder - it's glad spots that mean nothing about how op a class is exactly because of what you said. If you want to draw accurate conclusions you look at a lower rating (~2200) and see the normalized data from there and beyond, because the glad spots show nothing really.

justchecking, on 10 November 2014 - 11:58 PM, said:

Going to blizzcon looking for a fight is like going to the official wow arena forums for pvp advice :)

Renaissance_Man, on 31 July 2013 - 04:31 AM, said:

If I had a gun with two bullets and I was in a room with Hitler, bin Laden, and you, I would shoot you twice.

Don't expect anything more than the current state of the future Glads Team and the representation of classes at glad level. Showing what is the most op classes isn't the goal of this spreadsheet and, anyway, we can't trully prove it, but we can give an overall idea.

We can't have acces at the total population of one class and it won't be relevant anyway.

Example (completly absurd) :
40 hunters are playing the game : 39 Glads

=> Maybe these 39 hunters are all GOD but the class is broken (who knows ?)
OR
=> Maybe these 39 hunters are random but the class is op (who knows ?)

If 40 hunters play the game and 39 of them get gladiator,
and 700k DKs play the game and 40 of them get gladiator,
you would say that

Hunters are more op than DKs?

I think even people from kindergarden understand how wrong you are : S

Obviously with that kind of extreme example it would matter. Even someone in "kindergarden" can take an argument to an extreme using reductio ad absurdum.

The highest rated players generally choose to play classes to get the highest rating with, and even if you don't think that's true, the best classes still rise to the top. This is why there's so much class variation from 1800-2k, less variation from 2k-2200, then less as you get higher, etc. If a class is popular, it will probably have a high representation at the lower brackets. But the raw numbers of the overall wow population playing a class is not relevant to the top .5%, assuming it's not some extreme example like 39 out of 40 hunters getting glad. This is why the top .5% DOES matter, because it shows the strength of a class, regardless of the overall population.

I'm really happy for all the underdog warriors getting glad after being underpowered for all of Cata, all of these Warriors are obviously the most skilled players and now the game is finally perfectly balanced the Warrior community can prove how much better they are at the game than the rest of the playerbase.

In WoW, this data does matter, specifically because what class/spec you play isnt set in stone, like looking at race/sex/height etc IRL. In game, you have the ability (and tons of people do) to switch the class/spec you play based on how powerful it is. There will always be outliers, but ultimately, the majority of teams out there right now are playing VERY powerful specs/classes.

If we were looking at how many REAL LIFE hunters/warriors/priests etc got glad, then it would matter how many there were because being a HUNTER would be part of who they were permanently - it would be something they couldn't change, and you could then look at the overall population of Hunter's vs. how many Hunters got glad. But because so many people shift classes (or stop playing for a while) based on what's strong, the population itself fluctuates.

Using just warriors as an example - I have a ton of friends who rerolled Hunter at the beginning of the expac, specifically because of how OP they were. Some had played them before, but mostly it was because they knew that they would do well with that and in competition most people tend to do what they can to increase their chances to win.

Let's look at Paladins, for example. Ret is one of THE most popular specs in the game (the devs confirm it) and yet they have super low glad rep. You're telling me that we need to normalize this to tell that they aren't powerful? If you compare that to monks, who have a very low pop but are equally as bad as monks (relatively, I'm aware this is a subjective thing to say) then normalization would imply that rets are FAR more underpowered that monks solely because so many more people play ret than monk that it would be a very tiny percentage that were getting glad.

I hope this makes sense, since I'm listening to a boring conference call while typing this and trying to type this at the same time

TL;DR normalization has it values, but it isn't necessary here because class/spec is not a set condition - it will vary a ton based on relative power.

Because it doesn't take the total class population into account. Only by normalizing over the total class population can you get some hints on what is "stronger" or not.

You have for example 39 hunters getting glad in EU. If 40 hunters play the game you can say they are overpowered. If 100000 hunters play the game, even if the percentage you report is 13.26%, the percentage of hunters getting glad is 3.9% which would mean hunters are actually weak.